2014 Construction Management Program Information

2014 Construction Management Program Information
The UNLV Construction Management program is accredited by the American Council for
Construction Education (ACCE). Our most recent accreditation visit occurred in April 2014 and
the program was reaccredited at ACCE’s Board of Trustees meeting in July 2014.
ACCE accreditation requires information about the program and its success be provided to the
general public. Specifically, the program must publish objectives of the degree program,
admission requirements, degree program assessment measures employed, the information
obtained through these assessment measures and actions taken as a result of the feedback,
student achievement, the rate and types of employment of graduates, and any data supporting the
qualitative claims made by the degree program. This document provides this information for the
UNLV Construction Management program.
If you have questions about the information published here or if you would like more
information about UNLV’s Construction Management program, please contact Dr. Don Hayes,
Department Chair, at 702-895-4723 or [email protected].
1. UNLV BS in Construction Management Program Objectives
The UNLV BS in Construction Management focuses on four (4) specific objectives. These
objectives are:
A.
Preparestudentsforcareersinconstructionmanagement,including:
1.
Contemporaryknowledgeinprojectestimating,planning,scheduling
andcontrol,
2.
Contemporaryknowledgeofconstructionsciencesandpractices,
3.
Contemporaryknowledgeofriskmanagement,safety,litigationand
documentation,
B.
C.
D.
4.
State‐of‐the‐artskillsincomputerizationandinformationtechnology,
5.
Abilitytodefineandsolveproblems,
6.
Soundwrittenandverbalcommunicationskills,
7.
Soundinterpersonalandleadershipskills,
8.
Abilitytofunctiononinterdisciplinaryteams,
9.
Understandingofprofessionalandethicalresponsibilities,
10.
Understandingofprofessionalcustomerserviceandquality,
Provideacademicbackgroundtosucceedincertification
Provideacademicbackgroundtosucceedingraduatestudies
ProvideaprogramthatmeetsACCEaccreditationcriteria
2. Admission Requirements for Construction Management Students
University admission requirements are described in detail at the following links:
Freshmen Students:
http://www.unlv.edu/admissions/requirements/freshmen
Transfer Students:
http://www.unlv.edu/admissions/requirements/freshmen
International Students:
http://www.unlv.edu/admissions/requirements/international
Graduate Students:
http://graduatecollege.unlv.edu/admissions/
Howard R. Hughes College of Engineering has additional admission requirements which are
described at: http://engineering.unlv.edu/advising/prospective/admission.html
The Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering and Construction does not have any
additional admission requirements.
3. UNLV BS in Construction Management (BSCM) Quality Improvement Plan
A continuous improvement process ensures that the BSCM program provides students with the
best possible undergraduate education in construction and prepares them to become successful
construction managers. In that pursuit, the Construction Management Program strives to provide
the following learning outcomes:
1. Graduates have a fundamental grounding in mathematics, physics, and statistics.
2. Graduates have a strong grounding in business (business, law, economics, engineering
economics, and management).
3. Graduates have the ability to communicate effectively in written format and to provide
professional presentation appropriate to the situation and audience.
4. Graduates have the ability to use modern construction management tools in construction
management practice.
5. Graduates are aware of basic principles of ethical and professional conduct in providing for
safety and health to construction practice.
6. Graduates fulfill a broad construction management curriculum to include required courses in
construction management and construction science.
Direct and indirect assessment measures are employed to regularly evaluate our success in
achieving these learning outcomes. These assessments collect information from all of our
constituents – current students, graduates, alumni, employers, and interested community
members. These data are evaluated by the CM faculty with help from key Advisory Board
members to identify curricular and program changes to better attain the learning outcomes.
Discussions of potential programmatic changes are initiated by CM faculty, presented to the
Department’s Undergraduate committee, and then voted on by the entire CEEC faculty. Once
approved by the faculty, changes must also be approved by College and University Curriculum
Committees prior to implementation.
This Quality Improvement Plan is a continuous process and assessment results are analyzed
immediately upon receipt. However, organized annual evaluations of all available assessment
results are conducted to ensure that the process leads to a continuously improving program.
4. Program Assessment Measures and Results
A range of instruments are employed to assess how well our program accomplishes the learning
objective and program outcomes. The measures employed and the schedule of their desployment
is as follows:
Assessment Instrument
American Institute of Constructors’
Associated Constructor Level I Exam
Student Exit Interviews & Surveys
Student course evaluations
Alumni Surveys
Employer Surveys
Learning
Outcomes
All
All
Person(s)
Responsible
CEM 455
Instructor
Dept. Chair
All
All
All
Dept Chair
Advisory Board
Advisory Board
Data Collection
Spring Semester
Graduation
Semester
Every Course
Biannual
Biannual
Additional assessments are employed as appropriate. The most recent data and assessments from
each instrument are provided below.
a. American Institute of Constructors’ Associated Constructor Level I Exam
Construction Management Seniors takes the American Institute of Constructors’ Associated
Constructor Level I – Construction Fundamentals examination as part of CEM 455 Construction
Management Practice. This course is taken in the student’s final semester. All students must take
the exam and the results comprise a portion of their course grade.
The program uses this examination as a measure of academic quality. The goal established by the
program is to exceed the national average pass rate on the exam. Historically, the performance of
UNLV CM students has exceeded that goal; the data are shown in the table below.
Historical UNLV Student Results on American Institute of Constructors’
Associated Constructor Level I Exam
UNLV Students
National
Year
Taking
Passing
% Passing
(% Passing)
2014
8
6
75
49
2013
13
11
85
53
2012
8
6
75
58
2011
5
4
80
61
2010
19
17
89
62
2009
12
11
92
67
2008
82
58
2007
88
65
2006
80
58
2005
62
61
2004
82
51
2003
67
48
The American Institute of Constructors’ Associated Constructor Level I Exam provides
significantly more information than just the pass rate. The table below shows the 2014 results
from the 8 UNLV students who took the exam. UNLV students scored, on average, better than
the national average in every subject area. Still, several subjects were considered to be areas of
weakness by AIC. These include Engineering Concepts; Materials, Methods, and Project
Modeling and Visualization; Bidding and Estimating; and Construction Geomatics. These
subjects are also considered areas of weakness nationally (based upon the national average score)
because the National Average is less than the minimum acceptable score.
2014 Subject Area scores for UNLV students compared to the national average.
UNLV
National Maximum Minimum
Subject Area
Avg.
Avg.
Possible
Acceptable
Communication Skills
22.78
20.22*
31
22
Engineering Concepts
10.22*
9.08*
15
11
Management Concepts
27.11
25.00*
36
25
Materials, Methods, and Project
21.22*
20.49*
31
22
Modeling and Visualization
Bidding and Estimating
31.22*
28.62
45
32
Budgeting, Costs, and Cost Control
26.11
23.11
33
23
Planning, Scheduling, and Schedule
33.78
32.37
45
32
Control
Construction Safety
16.89
15.12
21
15
Construction Geomatics
4.89*
4.59*
7
5
Project Administration
28.00
26.27
36
25
*considered to be an area of weakness by AIC
b. Fall 2013 CM Course/Curriculum Review
Assessment results from 2011-2013, casual inquiries within the community, and the continual
need to improve the program suggested that a comprehensive review of all existing CM courses
in the program could potentially be useful. This review conducted by the IAB Curriculum
Committee on November 1, 2013. Dr. Hayes and Dr. Shields along with the nine members of the
local construction community met at UNLV for 3 hours to review all 21 CEM undergraduate
courses. The 9 industrial participants were:









Greg Desart, Geotechnical and Environmental Services
Jerry Englehart, Aggregate Industries
Kevin Love, Carollo Engineers
Cynthia Moore, CJM Innovations
Bryan Richards, PENTA
Jonna Samson, CEEC
Charles Thomas, Timet
Adam Werner, Clark County Water Reclamation District
Jeff Wood, McCarthy Construction
This intensive review of the CM curriculum provided useful insights into what local employers
are looking for in BSCM graduates. It also served to better inform the participants of the rigor
within the current program. Many verbal comments were made about how “surprised” they were
about the depth and breadth of the curriculum; they found it to be much more that they expected
based upon their previous understanding. It also served to provide a foundation for our future
discussion on program changes.
The review revealed that our required construction graphics course, AAD 267, is now using
Rhino 3D as the software platform. Our expectation was that they were teaching REVIT.
Discussions at the meeting showed little interest in Rhino 3D within our community and a strong
preference for a rigorous Building Information Modeling/REVIT course.
c. Alumni and Employer Surveys
The IAB’s Curriculum Committee developed and deployed Alumni and Employer surveys in
Spring 2013. These surveys included the Construction Management and Civil Engineering
programs. The surveys were designed so that each could be deployed as singular surveys
(Alumni and Employer) to simplify delivery. The Employer Survey garnered 30 responses while
the Alumni Survey garnered 17; CM-related responses were the majority of both with 19 and 10,
respectively.
While the 2012 survey results did not provide any startling results, there were some clear take
away messages for the program. Overall, employers are satisfied with the program and our
graduates. Alumni also are generally satisfied. Most respondents chose “Agree” for most
positively stated questions rather than “Strongly Agree.” On the surface, this looks like all good
news. However, we hoped for a much higher level of satisfaction from the biased audiences who
took this survey. This tempered response likely results from a combination of factual
observations, i.e. they truly have found areas in which we need to improve, and perception
resulting from historical communication with the University. This lack of overwhelmingly
positive results led to a complete review of the CM curriculum conducted in Fall 2013.
Revised Alumni/Employer surveys will be distributed in Spring 2015.
d. Individual Course Assessments
Internal reviews monitor performance of faculty and students on a routine basis to identify issues
and concerns quickly and ensure program delivery remains at a high level. Every course includes
formal, anonymous evaluation by the students. The evaluation consists of three parts, course
content, faculty performance, and student comments. These reviews are compiled by the College
of Engineering and student comments transcribed to electronic form to ensure anonymity. The
results are provided individually to each faculty member and collectively to the Department
Chair. The Department Chair uses the information to identify potential strengths, weaknesses,
and concerns, then address those with individual instructors as appropriate. Actions are taken by
the Department Chair, in consultation with the Dean, to remedy identified concerns as
appropriate. Recently, course evaluation results have been summarized and distributed to all
faculty in the following form:
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.99
4.96
4.91
4.91
4.91
CEEC Spring 2014 Teaching Evaluation Summary
4.86
4.66
4.57
4.39
4.10
4.80
4.65
4.53
4.37
4.06
4.79
4.64
4.53
4.25
4.03
4.77
4.62
4.50
4.21
4.02
4.72
4.58
4.49
4.21
3.91
4.71
4.57
4.49
4.18
3.90
4.71
4.57
4.41
4.14
3.90
4.71
4.57
4.40
4.11
3.75
These results are provided with this explanation of the color key:

Green -
Instructor did well; if you are at the low end of the
spectrum, please continue your efforts to improve.
3.72
3.70
3.57
3.26
3.24
3.23
3.08

Yellow -

Red -
Instructor should commit themselves to improving your
instruction and course management. However, if your
course is unusually rigorous and that leads to a lower
evaluation score, please continue to place quality over
popularity.
Instructor needs to improve. Instructors in this category
must prepare a written self-assessment of their
performance in the course along with a goal for the next
evaluation and specific strategies/changes to achieve
that goal. This plan must be submitted to the Chair and a
meeting held to discuss the plan. (none in this review)
Providing the data in this manner allows faculty to compare their performance with others in the
department while respecting instructors’ privacy. No distinction is made between CM and CEE
courses or full-time faculty and part-time instructors.
In addition to routine program assessments, many instructors conduct their own assessments. The
results are used to improve course delivery and content, but are not typically shared with other
faculty or the Department Chair.
e. Senior Exit Interviews and Surveys
Senior exit surveys and interviews are also important components of program assessment. They
provide essential student input on the program, its strengths, weaknesses, and areas of concern.
The Department Chair interviews each graduate individually. Students are asked for their input
related to all aspects of the program, including coursework, faculty, advising, career guidance,
and any other related subject they may wish to raise. The Chair attempts to limit questions to
clarification of specific points or as necessary to stimulate a productive conversation. These
unstructured, open-ended discussions typically last 30-60 minutes each. Since data collected in
this form is subject to bias, there is no attempt to gather quantifiable data. Instead, the
Department Chair produces a summary of the interviews that is distributed to the faculty and
Dean. The summary focuses primarily on synergistic issues raised by multiple graduates,
although a critical issue raised by a single graduate could be sufficient to raise the concern to the
faculty. Responses vary by issue, but the faculty attempt to respond to each issue appropriately.
The primary issue raised by the CEM graduates during the Spring 2014 exit interviews was
course scheduling; they want more courses at night. This is an important issue that merits careful
consideration. While I understand their concerns, it is not clear whether night or day courses are
best for the program’s growth. Currently, we start out with day classes at the freshman level,
then transition our CEM courses to later in the day with the senior level courses all being in the
evening.
The Exit Surveys provided more quantifiable information from the graduating students. The
results are summarized in the figure below. In general, it shows widespread satisfaction with the
CM program. It also shows that students believe that they successfully accomplished the learning
objectives established for the program.
CEM Student Responses
Prepared me for a career in the construction management.
Emphasized the need for continuing professional development…
Prepared me to begin the process of becoming a Certified…
Offered me general knowledge of the breadth of the…
Provided me with an awareness of social and contemporary…
Provided me with an understanding of professional and ethical…
Enabled me to use techniques, skills, and construction…
Promoted effective oral communication skills.
Promoted effective written communication skills.
Enabled me to identify, formulate, and solve open‐ended…
Enabled me to apply my knowledge of business, construction,…
Strongly 5
Disagree 4
3
2
1
Strongly Agree Figure 1. CEM student responses to questions about the CEM curriculum.
5. Actions Taken as a Result of Assessments
Program assessments provide insightful information into the performance of the program and its
success in meeting the objectives and learning outcomes. However, this information is only
valuable if it is used to modify the program and improve the results. Several specific actions
have resulted from our recent assessment efforts.
a) It was determined that one of our Part Time Instructors (PTI) missed a large number of
courses due to work commitments (travel) and had a co-worker substitute. We do our
best to accommodate our PTIs since the ones in the highest demand are the ones that we
really want teaching our students. However, some investigation showed that this had been
a growing problem. After some discussion with the instructor, it was decided that it was
best for all involved to find a new PTI for that course.
b) As mentioned above, it was determined that AA 267 was not meeting the needs of our
program. We have identified a course (ADT 201) at the College of Southern Nevada
(CSN) which serves our needs well. Discussions with CSN and the course instructor
showed that the course content is appropriate, the instructor is well qualified to teach
REVIT/BIM, and the course has plenty of capacity to accommodate our students. CSN is
our local community college partner. While outsourcing a required program course is not
ideal, it temporarily satisfies our need until we can find a solution at UNLV.
6. Student Achievement
BSCM students student achieve many goals during the course of their academic program.
Probably the most significant of these is passing the American Institute of Constructors’
Associated Constructor Level I Exam. As shown in the table above, UNLV CM students
continue to maintain a level of success far beyond the national average. In 2014, 6 of 8
students passed the exam on their first attempt.
In 2013, BSCM students also had the chance to participate in the DesertSol, UNLV’s
entry into the 2013 Solar Decathlon competition. The UNLV team placed 2nd overall and
was the highest ranked US entry. More information on the DesertSol project can be found
at http://solardecathlon.unlv.edu/.
7. Employment of BSCM Graduates
All 8 BSCM graduates in Spring 2014 secured full-time employment in construction-related
positions prior to graduation or immediately thereafter. All 8 graduates were employed in
entry-level professional positions. Six graduates took positions in the Las Vegas area.
Position titles for the new graduates ranged from Estimator to Project Engineer. The lowest
reported salary was between $40,000 and 45,000/yr. The highest reported salary was $55,000
to $60,000/yr.